Hopefully they can get them out and widely available soon...otherwise at this rate Sony might end up announcing something comparable by then lol.
Would love to be able to compare a 135mm and 105mm in store. Can't make up my mind which I'd go for (prefer 105mm focal length, but my filters are all 82mm) so would need to handle, and ideally rent both first.
Ken_Cravillion wrote:
Having used the Art 24mm f1.4 Sony mount and being unhappy with how it focused I cancelled my Sony mount 105mm f1.4 for the Canon mount. I also use it with the Metabones adapter as it works better for me than my MC11. Basically the Sony mount Art lenses focus like they have a MC11 attached and I hate how the MC11 adapter focuses.
You're wrong. I've used a 35 and 85 ART on an adapter for a few months now. I'm moving towards Sony mounts now. The main difference is the AF coverage. The Sony mount will cover about 95% of the screen, the adapter only has 70-80% coverage around the center. Otherwise optically both are the same. In situations where you want to nail the shot quick, it matters. If you're just taking your time, adapter is fine. The biggest problem with the Sony mount lens of the Sigmas are the wide angle ones. Even a Canon 16-35mm F4 I have trouble with on an adapter. You also lose video AF performance using the Canon metabones adapter. I only use the Metabones for my 135 F2 and 16-35 F4
Brea wrote:
You're wrong. I've used a 35 and 85 ART on an adapter for a few months now. I'm moving towards Sony mounts now. The main difference is the AF coverage. The Sony mount will cover about 95% of the screen, the adapter only has 70-80% coverage around the center. Otherwise optically both are the same. In situations where you want to nail the shot quick, it matters. If you're just taking your time, adapter is fine. The biggest problem with the Sony mount lens of the Sigmas are the wide angle ones. Even a Canon 16-35mm F4 I have trouble with on an adapter. You also lose video AF performance using the Canon metabones adapter. I only use the Metabones for my 135 F2 and 16-35 F4...Show more →
Well he is not necessarily wrong. Depending on the body, the mc-11 could indeed be worse at focusing than the Metabones.
When I got my A7R3 I was finally able to sell my Metabones specially after the tests I did with wide lenses showing how MB was affecting edge performance vs mc11. Metabones said they were going to test on their end after I linked them to m by video but I never heard back from them.
@Brea - Ken is not wrong. You’re talking to a few of us here who have basically walked the walk with everything. What you are describing has nothing to do with Sigma Global Vision lenses that are listed as optimized for use with the mc-11 (or play nicely with MB). The body detects a native lens in the case of the 105 Art.
I can personally attest to this thing AF’ing superbly with all focus modes enabled across all points on the A9.
What you are referring to primarily affects a number of Canon branded lenses. I experienced that with with the 200/2.0, 300/2.8, 70-200/2.8 II, 85 II, 50/1.2, etc. The only canon branded lenses I have found to not suffer from this are the 35 II and the old 100/2.0. I’m sure there could be others but I can only vouch for the ones I have physically owned and used. Also, it’s not 70-80% coverage. It’s probably closer to about 60% from what I have experienced. Again though, this could not be more irrelevant to the claims that Ken has made as he is talking compatible SGV lenses with the mc-11 or use with MB.
Well, I've been using the 135mm and 105mm both since they came out with adapters. In the case of the 135mm that's what a year now? Based on using them all at weddings professionally I've gotten the fastest, most accurate and reliable AF with the Metabones adapter. That also includes an E-mount version of the Art 24mm f1.4.
JohnDizzo15 wrote:
@Brea@ - Ken is not wrong. You’re talking to a few of us here who have basically walked the walk with everything. What you are describing has nothing to do with Sigma Global Vision lenses that are listed as optimized for use with the mc-11 (or play nicely with MB). The body detects a native lens in the case of the 105 Art.
I can personally attest to this thing AF’ing superbly with all focus modes enabled across all points on the A9.
What you are referring to primarily affects a number of Canon branded lenses. I experienced that with with the 200/2.0, 300/2.8, 70-200/2.8 II, 85 II, 50/1.2, etc. The only canon branded lenses I have found to not suffer from this are the 35 II and the old 100/2.0. I’m sure there could be others but I can only vouch for the ones I have physically owned and used. Also, it’s not 70-80% coverage. It’s probably closer to about 60% from what I have experienced. Again though, this could not be more irrelevant to the claims that Ken has made as he is talking compatible SGV lenses with the mc-11 or use with MB. ...Show more →
I'ved tried this over and over. I have both adapters. MC11 and Metabones. Went to the store to compared the 2 side by side (art on e mount vs art on MC11). The Sony mount has more focus coverage. I wasn't able to compare focus performance or video AF. From what I've seen though the Sony mount has worse video AF performance on the 85 Art for some reason because I use it extensively on the A7III and it seems to have nicer transitions when changing focus. I'd love to buy the Canon copy if performance was par - it's way easier to share lens with Canon friends.
Brea wrote:
I'ved tried this over and over. I have both adapters. MC11 and Metabones. Went to the store to compared the 2 side by side (art on e mount vs art on MC11). The Sony mount has more focus coverage. I wasn't able to compare focus performance or video AF. From what I've seen though the Sony mount has worse video AF performance on the 85 Art for some reason because I use it extensively on the A7III and it seems to have nicer transitions when changing focus. I'd love to buy the Canon copy if performance was par - it's way easier to share lens with Canon friends....Show more →
As stated previously, you would’ve needed to have tried a Sigma Global Vision lens that was listed on the compatibility/optimized list provided by Sigma. The 24/1.4 Art wasn’t optimized for use with the MC-11 until about a week ago with the latest firmware update. This update also made my 20/1.4 which I previously used exclusively on the Metabones now behave natively on the MC-11.
Brea wrote:
Very nice picture! The 135mm would have a similar rendering though.
While true, it isn't a bad thing. For me, that is one of the main draws. Similar look as slightly longer perspectives with a easier working distance and more light gathering ability.
Here are a few of mine that I shared a while back in the FE image thread.
I picked up my copy of this fine lens (E mount) Thursday and I really like the 3D pop it gives! I will be using it tomorrow on a senior portrait shoot, until then, samples from the store.
We need to keep this thread going as well instead of the pre-order thread. This, I think is the actual Sigma image thread. If not, then we need to make an official 105 image thread.
Todd wrote:
We need to keep this thread going as well instead of the pre-order thread. This, I think is the actual Sigma image thread. If not, then we need to make an official 105 image thread.
Beautiful image. I really like the color tone and perspective.
